Well, it turns out I just had to regenerate the toolpath. Now all of my programs are back to normal.

It is unchecked everywhere.

It's doing it for all posts and all machine / control definitions. How is it even possible that changing a setting in one control definition affects all of the definitions in my mcam folder? Not only that, but they all show that the setting is back to normal.

I'm having an issue with this as well. I followed all these steps but it's still posting the adjusted feed rate on arc moves. When I go into the machine def and control def, it shows the "Adjust feedrate on arc moves" box is unchecked. It is also unchecked in the Tool Settings tab. Any ideas?

In X9, the Simulator view was controlled by the workspace WCS. If you were in your custom "Sequence 30" WCS plane, then using Alt+7 in the Simulator would show an Isometric view of that plane. In 2017, all the views are with respect to the default "Top" WCS regardless of which plane you are working in, so you can't see an Isometric (or any other) view of a custom plane. Am I missing something that allows you to enable the old functionality?

The arcs sort fine. The points do not. Unless that is a new feature in 2017. I'm running X9.

Haas also has a subroutine command (M97) that makes it really easy to do things like this. Instead of having 8 different copies of the same operation for each angle, you can do something like this: So it makes the cut, rotates 45deg incrementally, then repeats a number "L" times. Don't forget to check your G90/G91 commands though. That would make a mess.

Ah okay. That's what I meant earlier when I said it could be figured out with some trigonometry. I should have known someone had already done the math and made it into a simple equation. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll definitely keep that constant handy.

Tried that already. It's a mess. The entry points just don't coincide with their respective circles. Well, I don't know where ".4142" comes from or where you want me to put that information. But I could use the equation (hole size - tool diameter) / 2 if I were just using an entry line with no arc. But I want to use an arc. That's what I've been using as a workaround. That is exactly what I'm asking. So I'll just assume we've reached a consensus that it is not possible to sort contour entry points and I'll continue using circle mill instead.

No, I'm not. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for wanting my tool to move to the nominal hole location before each chamfer operation. It is possible to do this, but it involves placing the entry point before the contour chain in the chain manager. I simply would like to know if it's possible to link these geometries so they sort correctly, or if it's possible to sort contour entry points at all.

Yeah I'm not worried about plunging into the part or anything. Using Lead In/Out, you can get really close to the center of the hole with trial and error (or you can get virtually right on center if you want to do some fairly involved trigonometry to figure out the lead in arc length combined with the lead in line) but it's still not the same as simply using an entry point to locate directly at the nominal hole location. My question is more about sorting linked geometry in the chain manager.

The circles are all the same size in this case. If you don't select the point, the toolpath will start at the beginning of the lead in line. I want the toolpath to start at the center of the circle.

I have a lot of holes that I need to chamfer, and I like to use the center of holes as entry / exit points so the NC code moves the tool to the nominal location of each hole before plunging and circular interpolating. Normally, I would just select the center point of a hole and then select the circle. Then I'd check "use entry point" and "use exit point" under the Lead In/Out parameters. The problem I'm having is that the points in the chain manager don't sort along with the circles, and I don't have time to (and really don't want to) manually move each point before its associated circle. Is there any way around this? I know I can just use a circle mill, but then I have to figure out the correct depth and negative wall stock. Not the end of the world, but also not as simple as using the contour chamfer function. Also, I wouldn't be able to specify my Lead In/Out line and arc. I can also just abandon the entry / exit points altogether, but I like to see (and want my operators to see) the nominal hole locations in the NC code as a quick check to make sure they're all in the correct location.

If you want to know the distance between a point on your toolpath and any solids / geometry, go into Toolpath Editor for that operation then do an Analyze Distance. Mastercam lets you select points along the toolpath when you are in this mode. You can skip posting the operation and/or doing the math.

If you're using Control compensation (entering the radius of the tool into the machine control), you might not want to use tangent lines to avoid large comp moves while entering a cut. But I use Wear compensation almost exclusively, so tangent lines wouldn't make the cutter move a significant amount before the cut.